Civil Law Case Study: Evaluating Negligence and Duty of Care Breaches

This civil law case study examines a scenario where Sam, aware of his car's brake issues, drives with his children, leading to an accident. The analysis focuses on Sam's negligence in breaching his duty of care. The study explores the application of the 'Objective Test for Reasonable Person' and the 'But For' test to establish causation. It considers defenses like contributory negligence, given the road conditions and the actions of other drivers involved. The paper references key legal precedents such as Latimer v AEC, Roberts v Ramsbottom, and Mansfield v Weetabix to determine the standard of care. It also discusses the court's role in delivering justice, including the awarding of compensatory and potentially punitive damages. The case study concludes by suggesting that the court should consider all contributing factors, including the actions of other parties and the state of the road, when evaluating Sam's liability and determining an appropriate remedy.

Running head: CIVIL LAW
Civil Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CIVIL LAW
The given case study discusses about the negligence of a reasonable person who failed to
meet the standard of care for carrying out his duty of care. Sam, knowing that his car had issues
with the brakes and it needed servicing, went on the trip with his children without paying heed to
the condition of the car for he did not want to disappoint his children. However, he did not think
about the situation of the road, which always has an uncertainty, whether with the condition of
the road or with the fellow drivers. Although he maintained a speed of 45 mph and enough space
between the vehicle in front of his car, yet that cannot cover for his negligence of ignoring the
poor condition of the car. The fact that the road was slippery due to the sloppy manure deposited
by Farmer Giles could bring in the defence of contributory negligence, as it was a public road. In
addition, the fact that Jenny was over-speeding and that her car veered across the road and
landed in front of Sam’s car unexpectedly for she suffered a sudden fit, would also attract the
defence of contributory negligence. The court would consider all the factors and would lay down
an appropriate judgment that would held Sam to be guilty of breaching his duty of care;
however, the court would consider the defences of contributory negligence for the matter.
Deviating from what law should be applied to the case, it is needed to be discussed as to
what the response of the law should be in this matter. In accordance with the case of Latimer v
AEC [1953] AC 643, the Objective Test for Reasonable person needs to be determine to
understand the standard of care of the defendant. The defendant was not held guilty for breach of
duty of care for he met the standard of care. The court, in the case of Roberts v Ramsbottom
[1980] 1 WLR 823 held that the defendant guilty of breaching his duty of care, for he being a
seasoned driver should have known his standard of care; therefore, would not be pardoned for his
illness. However, in Mansfield v Weetabix [1997] EWCA Civ 1352, the court did not held the

2CIVIL LAW
defendant guilty of breach of duty for he was suffering from malignant insulinoma, which shot
up his blood sugar level and resulted to an accident while he was driving. The court held that as
per the law, the medical condition of the defendant is to be considered along with the fact that he
was unaware of his condition that impairs his driving skills while the accident occurred.
Applying the Objective Test for reasonable person, it was held in Blyth v Birmingham
Waterworks Company (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781 the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed in context to the
defence of reasonableness in the tort of negligence.
The court is ought to apply the ‘But For’ Test to establish the factual causation of the
damage where it should be proved that the damage was effected for the particular breach of duty
of care by the defendant. In Clements v. Clements [2012] 2 SCR 181 the ‘but for’ test was
applied to highlight the causation of damage that resulted for the fault of the defendant,
otherwise it would not have occurred. The deliverable of the law is to rectify the deficiency of
the relationship of the defendant and the claimant that requires the defendant to compensate the
claimant for the damage that he has suffered for the negligence of the claimant who has breached
his duty of care. This type of recovery is termed as corrective justice where the plaintiff and the
claimant have a co-relation and the justice system strives to mend the loss of the injury that the
claimant has suffered. The ‘but for’ test helps the law to determine the damage that has occurred
to the plaintiff and thus helps in determining the compensation that needs to be awarded to the
plaintiff.
The general aim of law is to deliver justice to the sufferer who suffers due to the
negligence of another. Its primary aim is to provide relief to the parties who have suffered injury
or damages caused by another. The law should impose liability to those who have inflicted harm

3CIVIL LAW
upon the other person. Redressal are providing mainly in the form of monetary compensation, for
mending the loss that the sufferer has suffered. However, remedies differ as per the type of tort:
intentional, negligent and strict liability. However, in tort, law not only strives to provide
compensatory damages for remedying the aggrieved party, but also seeks to award punitive
damages for deterring potential tortfeasors to take precautionary measures to avoid committing a
wrong. However, the law must consider certain factors; factors that the plaintiff himself may
have contributed to the negligent act of the defendant or there might have been some uncertain or
unexpected event that have led to the causation of the loss of the plaintiff for which the
defendant cannot be held liable.
Therefore, by analysing the aim of law in context to the given case study, the law or the
adjudicating authority should take the common law and the precedents in consideration to
evaluate the given case. The law should consider that the negligence of Sam pertaining to his
breach of duty of care to repair his car should be evaluate based on the circumstances that led to
the accident. The accident may not have occurred if the roads were not sloppy due to the manure
deposited by Farmer Giles as well as the factor of over-speeding and sudden fit of Jenny that
resulted in the collision of the two cars. The law should seek for a punitive form of remedy that
would act as deterrence for Sam for being negligent. Punitive damages charged against Sam
should, however be effected by considering the related instigating factors.

4CIVIL LAW
References:
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781
Clements v. Clements [2012] 2 SCR 181
Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643
Mansfield v Weetabix [1997] EWCA Civ 1352
Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980] 1 WLR 823